Haryana

Jind

223/13

Karambir Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. H.S. Lather

23 Dec 2014

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 223 of 2013

   Date of Institution: 23.10.2013

   Date of final order: 29.1.2015

 

Karambir Saini s/o Sh. Giani Ram resident of Jawahar Nagar, Safidon road, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.     

                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1.     National Insurance Company Ltd. National Insurance Building,

 Ist floor, 8 India Exchandge Place, Kolkata 700001.

2.     National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch office, Jind through its

        Branch Manager.

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:      Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

                Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

               

Present:     Sh. H.S. Lather, Adv. for  complainant.

                Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj, Adv. for  opposite parties.

            

ORDER:

        The brief facts in the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of  Truck  bearing registration No.HR-56-6683and the same was got insured  with the opposite parties vide policy No.150100/31/11/630051973 dated 3.3.2012 for the period 3.3.2012 to 2.3.2013. The truck of the complainant was stolen by some one  on 22.2.2013 from Jind and application to this effect was given to the S.P. Jind on 23.2.2013 which was sent to concern Police Station by SP Jind immediately. An FIR No.172 dated 3.3.2013 under Section 379 IPC was registered in police station Jind. The matter was investigated by the police seriously but no clue was found about the truck of

                        Karambir Saini Vs. NIC etc.

                                        …2…

complainant and at last police of P.S. City, Jind submitted the untraced report  to Illaqua Magistrate which was accepted by CJM, Jind vide order dated 26.7.2013. The truck of the complainant was financed by Magma Fincorp Limited branch office Hissar and premium of insurance was got deposited by the said office which is valid up to 2.3.2013.  The complainant informed the opposite parties immediately regarding the stolen of his truck and submitted all the necessary documents. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties several times and requested to give the claim amount but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 5.10.2013 through his counsel Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the insured sum of Rs.8,51,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  put in appearance and filed the written reply stating in the preliminary objections  that the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that the complainant has not informed in time about the alleged theft of truck to the opposite parties. The alleged theft of truck has been shown on 22.2.2013 and FIR was registered after considerable delay of 9 days. The complainant never approached nor lodged any claim in time with

 

                        Karambir Saini Vs. NIC etc.

                                        …3…

the opposite parties. The present complaint is premature.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

 3.    In evidence the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, postal receipts Ex. C-2, C-3, C-9 and C-10, copies of document Ex. C-4 and C-6, copy of FIR Ex. C-5, copy of  policy schedule Ex. C-7, copy of RC Ex. C-8 and copy of legal notice Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of  Sh. R.R. Chaudhary, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. OP-1 and copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence.

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant insured his truck No. HR56-6683 with the opposite parties vide policy valid for the period 3.3.2012 to 2.3.2013 Ex. C-7. The said truck was stolen by some one on 22.2.2013 from Jind and application to this effect was given to S.P. Jind in the morning on 23.2.2013 and S.P., Jind sent this application to concerned police station immediately Ex.C-4. An FIR No.172 dated 3.3.2013 under Section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station, Jind Ex. C-5. The truck of the complainant was financed by Magma Fincorp Limited branch office Hissar. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the theft of his truck and submitted all the necessary documents. After investigation, the police had also filed untraced report(F.R) which was accepted by CJM, Jind vide order dated 26.7.2013 Ex.C-6. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties several times and requested to give the claim amount but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated

 

                        Karambir Saini Vs. NIC etc.

                                        …4…

5.10.2013 upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.

5.     On the other hand, the opposite parties have averred that the complainant did not inform the opposite parties within time about the alleged theft of his truck. The alleged theft of truck has been shown on 22.2.2013 and FIR was registered on 3.3.2013 i.e. after delay of 9 days and on the date of registration of FIR of the alleged theft of truck, the truck of complainant was not insured with the opposite parties. And a false FIR was got registered by the complainant incollusion with the police about the theft of said truck. The complainant never approached nor lodged any claim with the opposite parties and this complaint is pre-mature.

6.     After going through the facts and circumstances of the case,  it is clear that the opposite parties have not settled the claim of the complainant and the present complaint is pre-mature. But in the interest of justice the opposite parties are directed to settle the claim of the complainant within two months after receiving the certified copy of this order. With these observations, the complaint is disposed of. Parties will bear their own costs.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

  Announced on: 29.1.2015

                                                                President,

 Member                              District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind